23 73. Since its very first judgments, the Court has ruled on the close connection between the general duty to safeguard the right to fair trial embodied in Article 1(1) of the Convention and the specific rights protected under said instrument.20 The duty to safeguard the right to fair trial imposes certain obligations upon the State, which are aimed at guaranteeing that any person under the jurisdiction of the State may freely and fully exercise the rights embodied in the Convention.21 Given its close connection to other specific rights, the duty to safeguard the right to fair trial may be fulfilled in different manners; therefore, whether the State has said duty to safeguard the right to fair trial will depend on the specific right at stake and the circumstances of the case. 74. The duty to investigate human rights violations falls under the positive measures that States should adopt to guarantee the rights embodied in the Convention.22 From the very beginning, the Court has ruled that in order to fulfill the aforementioned duty, States must not only prevent but also “investigate and punish any violation of the rights embodied in the Convention, and also foster restoration, if possible, of the affected right and, as applicable, redress the damage resulting from said human rights violation.”23 75. As regards to the duty to guarantee the right set forth in Article 4 of the Convention, the Court has indicated that said right: not only presupposes that no person may be arbitrarily deprived of his life (negative duty) but also requires, pursuant to the obligation to guarantee the full and free exercise of human rights, that the States adopt any and all necessary measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive duty) of the individuals under their jurisdiction. The State’s positive duty to protect the right to life does not involve legislators only but the entire government structure and those in charge of security, namely the State’s police or armed forces.24 76. Furthermore, the Court found that: in cases of extra-judicial executions, it is essential that States conduct an effective investigation into a deprivation of life case and punish the perpetrators, especially when state officials are involved; otherwise they would be creating, in a climate of impunity, the conditions that will allow these events to continue, which is contrary to the duty to respect and guarantee the right to life.25 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Judgment of June 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. Case of Godinez-Cruz. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 171; and Case of Neira Alegría et al. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 85. 20 Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 297; Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 81; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 142. 21 22 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 3, para. 177. 23 Case of Velázquez-Rodríguez, supra note 20, para. 166. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 130 and 131. Cf. also Case of MonteroAranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 4, para. 65 and 66; and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 84; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 152. 24 Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 91. Cf. also Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 137 and 232-233. 25